Posts Tagged ‘Government’

Perspectives On Profiling

April 16, 2009



Obama Is Relying On Trickle-Down Economics

April 10, 2009

I had a thought this morning and wanted to share it with everyone.  My thought:  Obama’s plans to get us out of the recession actually depend on Trickle-down economics (aka Supply-side economics or Reaganomics).  I bet I have your attention now so let me explain.

First let me say that Obama’s plans do not start with Trickle-down economics in mind.  He begins with the Keynesian theory of economics which basically say that the government can spend the country out of recession if they will just spend enough.  I know I have probably over simplified this explanation but a more thorough explanation is beyond the scope of this post.

So how do we get from the Keynesian model to the Trickle-down model.  Here is how.  In order for the government to spend money it has to pick some “entry points” into the economy.  Obama has chosen and shown us 3 so far.  They are 1) infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, other capital expenditures), 2) the financial industry (banks), and 3) the auto industry.  I would assume there are more “entry points” but that have not been revealed yet.  Once the “entry points” have been defined, the government then injects the money into the economy through them in various ways….loans, tax credits, debt forgiveness, and stock purchases just to name a few.  Once the money is in the hands of these “entry points” it is up to them to spend the money.  This is where we switch to the Trickle-down model.

The new money is to be spent in such ways as to increase economic activity (buying, selling, expanding, etc.).  This increased activity by the “entry points” will cause more activity (buying, selling, expanding) for their suppliers. The process continues down to the next level and so on until it has affected every level or our economy. This is basically Trickle-down economics. This increased activity means more jobs and a higher standard of living for our people.  It means less expensive goods and services for consumers.  And it means increased tax revenue to the government.

So, back to my main point.  For Obama’s recovery plan to work, he has to depend on an economic theory that he hates.  That is because this is how economics work.  The supply side is what happens everyday in real life in our country.  I doubt the Obama even realizes this.  I bet there are some of his advisers who do but I am sure they don’t/won’t point this out.  I find this to be very ironic.  Obama is trying to get away from the economics of Reagan and Bush but his own plans depend on the same thing theirs did to be successful.

Liberals Don’t Want Our Military Personnel To Have Their Votes Counted

April 9, 2009

Today at the state capital Democrats voted against legislation that would have made it easier for Tennesseans serving in the military to participate in elections even if they are deployed outside of the state or the country. [Source:]

I have noticed a recurring theme over the past several years.  It seems that the liberals don’t want to allow our military personnel their Constitutional right to have their votes counted.  At the same time, they seem to have no problem with illegal aliens, criminals with felony convictions, dead people, animals, underage citizens, and make believe friends (I am sure you can probably think of a few more examples) voting in our elections.  In some places they even encourage people to vote early and often and are willing to help them do so.  This is nothing new.  The fact that this is happening in Tennessee also is something we don’t like to consider.

I came across this story in my Google reader tonight and frankly I was appalled.  The story opens with the above quote.  It really makes no sense to me why any of our state or federal legislators would do something like this but that is probably because I still believe (naively) that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  How can someone who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, state or federal, simply ignore the right every qualified CITIZEN has to have his/her voted counted?  And more than that, why do liberals always seek to suppress the military vote?  It would seem to me that our leaders would want to make certain that our military personnel, who are stationed abroad, would have every possible opportunity to have their ballot counted.  To me, it seems to be one of the very least of the things we should do for those who sacrifice so much defending our freedoms.

I can only imagine one reason as to why liberals oppose letting these people exercise their Constitutional rights.  That reason is that they fear the military as a voting block.  I would assume that most military personnel are conservative and they vote that way.  If they were liberal, there would be no suppression of their ability to vote.

We only have to look at a few recent examples to illustrate what has been going on.  Lets start with the 2000 Presidential election.  If you remember that was Bush vs. Gore and the election hinged on the outcome of the multiple recounts in Florida.  During the recounts, all of which were won by Bush, Gore sought to have the absentee ballots invalidated and thus not counted.  If my memory serves, most of these absentee ballots were from military personnel stationed abroad.  The was only one reason Gore did not want to count these ballots.  He thought they would be Bush votes.

With a little effort I am sure I could find many similar situations.  Our main problem is that we have politicians (from all parties) who see our Constitution as a living document.  This means that they believe it is open to re-interpretation based on the “times” and circumstances.   As such, this allows them to do just about anything they want.  All you have to do is look at the first two months of Obama’s presidency for proof of this.  Power seeking liberals are willing to strip us of our freedoms and rights in order to accomplish their agenda.  This worldview is wrong and must be stopped.  We must begin with small things, like ensuring that our deployed military personnel are able to exercise their Constitutionally defined right to vote and have that vote counted.  We must begin to take back our government….one small step at a time.  Why one step at a time…..because that is how the liberals took it from us and because that is the only way it will work short of an armed revolt by the people.

I call upon our Tennessee legislators to re-examine this issue and to find some way to make certain that our deployed military personnel can vote.  If they are unwilling to make sure that the vote of every qualified citizen of Tennessee counts then we should fire them at the next election.  Lets hold them accountable.

Obama’s Tax Plan

March 16, 2009


This says it all.  No further commentary needed.

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment By Chuck Baldwin

March 4, 2009

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment
By Chuck Baldwin
March 3, 2009

This column is archived at

According to ABC News (Feb. 25, 2009), “The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“‘As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,’ Holder told reporters.”

Holder also said that President Obama would seek to make the assault weapons ban permanent, close the “gun show loophole,” and ban “cop-killer” bullets.

At this point, I believe it is incumbent on me to say that both Eric Holder and Barack Obama have made a career out of doing everything in their power to strip the American people of their right to keep and bear arms. Even under the rubric of the abovementioned “few gun-related changes,” there is the potential for widespread assault against our Second Amendment.

For example, the so-called “assault weapons” ban is as phony as the Bush-Obama stimulus spending bills–and just as fraudulent. A semi-automatic rifle, which is incapable of automatic fire, is not an “assault weapon.” By definition, an assault weapon must be capable of fully automatic fire. A civilian AR-15-style rifle–in any configuration–is functionally identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact, many hunters commonly use AR-15-style rifles for all types of hunting, both predator and big game. The term “assault weapon” is simply a dangerous-sounding moniker that makes it easy for a compliant media to intimidate the public and public officials into passing a ban against semi-automatic rifles.

Furthermore, does anyone believe that if Obama and Holder were successful in outlawing semi-automatic rifles, pump and bolt-action rifles would not also be targeted? Get real! I well remember gun control zealots during the Clinton years railing against bolt-action rifles, calling them “sniper” rifles. And once rifles are outlawed, how long would it be before handguns and shotguns would fall victim to a similar fate? As always, the issue for these people is not what type of firearm it is; the issue is the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms–any arms.

Of course, the “gun show loophole” is nothing more than the prohibition against private citizens selling and trading their own personal firearms. I would like to remind the Obamas and Holders of this country that liberty is not a “loophole.”

In the beginning, the private sale and trading of firearms was almost exclusively the purpose for which gun shows were started. Today, commercial firearms dealers dominate gun shows, but it is still a convenient marketplace for citizens to buy and trade guns. This is a freedom and right that is as old as the country itself. Shoot (pun intended)! I remember when we were free to buy guns from a Sears & Roebuck catalog.

And as to banning “cop-killer” bullets, what bullet is not capable of killing? Any bullet that is not capable of killing a good guy is not capable of killing a bad guy (be it two-legged or four). This is just another approach to the same goal: the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, any gun without a bullet is pretty much useless.

The Democrats went down this road in 1994. Are they really willing to go down the same road again? It looks like they are.

It was largely an aggressive gun control agenda that caused the Republicans to sweep both houses of Congress in 1994 and render Bill Clinton without a majority in either chamber. It was also an aggressive gun control agenda that caused Al Gore to lose the Presidential election in 2000. Even Bill Clinton publicly acknowledged that fact.

All of that said, however, the underlying reality is that it is the individual States that must ultimately be guardians of the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, of course). States must be willing to resist any and all efforts by the central government to intrude upon their independence, sovereignty, and liberties. If this was not the case, why did the individual States not dissolve after the federal government was created by the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787? Why? Because the States were deemed to be superior entities. Superior in assignment. Superior in responsibility. Superior in nature. Superior in scope.

As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers, No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Therefore, when the federal government begins to intrude upon the rights and liberties of the people, it is the responsibility of the States to resist.  Obviously, the way the federal government tries to keep States in subjection is through bribery: by threatening to deny federal tax dollars unless States comply with their despotic machinations. And, sadly, most States have succumbed to this menacing temptation for far, far too long.

The good news is that States are finally beginning to fight back.

According to World Net Daily, “So far, eight states have introduced  resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

“Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.”

Pertaining specifically to the Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in particular, seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the recent Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of Montana’s senators and representatives–along with its Secretary of State– proposed a resolution stating “that any ‘collective rights’ holding in D.C. v. Heller will violate Montana’s compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana entered the Union in 1889.”

The Montana resolution recalls, “When Montana entered into statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in 1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to ‘any person.'”

The resolution continues, “To be clear, the wording of the right to bear arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it was in 1884.”

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, “There is no question that the contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the parties to the contract.”

The resolution ended by stating sternly, “A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora’s box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation.”

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the infringement of its citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. I don’t think I’m reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I’ve just been told that New Hampshire may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.)

Montana has it exactly right!

Now it is time for every State legislative body in America that believes in the Second Amendment to step up to the plate and let Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the rest of these gun-grabbing socialists know that they will not tolerate even one more attempt to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms–and that includes any so-called “assault weapons” ban.

And let’s never forget that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not to ensure the rights of hunters, but of citizens to protect themselves–and their States–against the tyrannical tendencies of their own government.

P.S. If anyone wants to see firsthand testimony regarding the importance of the Second Amendment, I encourage him or her to watch this testimony given before Congress not long ago:

Let Them Eat Pork

February 3, 2009

This illustrates perfectly the mentality of our elected leaders today.


Getting Back On Track

January 29, 2009


A picture is worth a thousand words.  Don’t you agree?


January 28, 2009


Can you guess where the major cities in the United States are on this map?

Pelosi Believes One Way To Reduce Costs Is To Reduce The Number Of Babies Born

January 26, 2009

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC’s THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

[Source:  The Drudge Report]

As the economy sinks deeper in the current recession, let’s not address the waste in government spending as a way of reducing costs.  Let’s not examine and list priorities (such as national defense) in our spending and cut everything else until we are out of the recession.  Let’s use this opportunity to push our pro child sacrifice abortion agenda.

The United States has the leaders that it deserves.  I hope we, as a nation, wake up before it is too late…..if it is not too late already.

The Solution To The National Deficit

January 22, 2009